WHERE  IS  THE  MONEY? 


VIOLATIONS  OF  LAW 

BY 

The  State  Board  of  Health 

IN  EXPENDING  MONEY. 

EXTRAVAGANT  EXPENDITURES! 

POSTAGE,  $ 7/9.01 . HOTEL  BILLS,  $997.00. 

E.  W.  Gray,  Secretary  for  August,  1877,  - $83.32 

J.  H.  Rauch,  Sec’y  for  Sept,  and  Oct.,  1878,  $400.00 


To  the  Tax- Payers  of  the  State  of  Illinois: 

Although  the  tax- payers  of  the  State  did  not  seem  to 
be  aware  of  the  fact,  they  have  been  swindled  and  humbug- 
ged by  quacks,  irregulars,  magnetic  healers,  and  patent  med- 
icine venders,  to  such  an  extent  that  the  “ regular  ” doctors 
have  taken  the  matter  in  hand,  and  have  procured  the  enact- 
ment of  laws  prohibiting  such  swindlers. 

1 his  was  tor  the  'protection  of  the  people  of  the  State.  Of 
course  the  people  must  pay  for  it. 

1 o protect  the  people  there  was  enacted  by  the  Legislature 
ol  this  State  two  acts,  one  entitled  “ An  Act  to  regulate  the 
practice  of  medicine  in  the  State  of  Illinois,”  and  the  other 
entitled  “ An  Act  to  create  and  establish  a Board  of  Health 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,”  both  .acts  having  gone  into  force  Julv 
1st,  1877. 


2 


INFORMATION  FOR  TAX  - PAYERS. 


It  is  necessary  to  examine  the  provisions  of  both  of  these 
acts  to  ascertain  what  moneys  the  State  Board  of  Health 
are  authorized  to  receive,  and  how  much  and  for  what  pur- 
pose, they  are  authorized  to  pay  out  the  same. 

I. 

WHAT  THE  BOARD  MAY  RECEIVE. 

1.  By  section  4 of  the  first  named  act,  a fee  of  one  dollar 
is  to  be.  paid  by  each  graduate  or  licentiate,  whose  diploma 
is  examined  and  approved  by  the  board. 

2.  By  section  8,  each  candidate  examined  by  the  board  is 
required  to  pay  a fee  of  jive  dollars . 

3.  By  section  12,  a license  fee  of  $100  fer  month  is  to  be 
paid  by  the  persons  named  in  said  section. 

HOW  MUCH  MONEY  HAS  BEEN  RECEIVED  BY  THE 
BOARD  ? 

On  page  19  of  the  printed  report  of  the  board  it  is  stated 
that  they  have  issued  5,374  certificates,  and  that  of  that  num- 
ber there  was  issued  to  licentiates,  upon  examinations  made 
by  the  board,  198  certificates,  which,  deducted  from  the  total 
number  issued,  leaves  5,176. 


1.  Hence,  one  dollar  each  was  received  for  them, $5,176  00 

2.  Five  dollars  each  for  198 990  00 


Making  total  received 6,166  00 

At  page  43  of  report,  the  board  credit  the  account  with  $54 

returned,  and  $10  lost,  making 64  00 


Which  leaves,  of  money  received, 6,102  00 

At  page  43  the  board  only  account  for 5,910  00 


Leaving  unaccounted  for 192  00 


At  page  20  it  appears  that  48  certificates  were  granted  to  mid- 
wives,  for  which  there  should  have  been  received  $240. 
But  at  page  43  the  board  only  account  for  37  certificates  at 
$5  each,  without  any  explanation.  Eleven  certificates  un- 


accounted for,  at  $5  each, 55  00 

Still  leaving  unaccounted  for 137  00 


The  jive  dollar  fees  were  required  by  section  8 of  said  act 
to  be  paid  in  advance . 

Why  was  this  requirement  omitted ? 

How  is  the  $137.00  above  accounted  for  ? 


INFORMATION  FOR  TAX-PAYERS.  3 

The  board  have  charged  themselves  for  licenses,  $5,910, 
as  above  stated. 

3.  The  report  of  the  board  fails  to  show  any  account  of 
money  received  for  licenses  at  $100  per  month,  issued  under 
section  12  of  said  act 

Ordinarily,  it  would  be  fair  to  presume  that  no  licenses 
had  been  issued  under  that  section,  and  that  no  money  had 
been  received  by  the  board  theretor. 

Yet,  it  is  said  by  those  who  are  in  a position  to  know,  that 
such  licenses  have  been  issued,  and  that  money  was  paid  for 
the  same,  and  which,  unless  expended,  is  still  on  hand. 

Will  the  board  state  the  particulars,  showing  how  many 
and  who  were  licensed,  for  what  purpose,  and  how  much 
has  been  received  therefor  ? 

4.  There  is  only  one  other  way  in,  which  the  board  may 
lawfully  receive  money. 

Section  n of  the  act  to  create  and  establish  the  Board  of 
Health  makes  an  appropriation  of  $5,000,  to  be  paid  out  as 
therein  specified. 

HOW  MUCH  WAS  RECEIVED  FROM  THIS  SOURCE  ? 

From  a statement  of  the  amount  paid  to  board  from  the  State 
Treasury,  procured  from  the  Auditor’s  office,  it  appears  that 
there  was  drawn  from  the  Treasury,  on  the  certificate  of 
J.  H.  Rauch,  President  of  the  Board,  up  to  and  including 
January  14th,  1879, ..$2,945  21 

To  this  add  amount  which  the  board  admit  having  received  for 

licenses, 5,910  00 

Making  amount  received,  by  board 8,855  21 

This  does  not  include  fees  received  for  licenses  between 
the  date  of  the  report,  October  1st,  1878,  and  January  17th, 
1879. 

11. 

HOW  CAN  THE  BOARD  LAWFULLY  USE  THIS  MONEY? 

Section  8,  of  the  medical  practice  act,  referred  to,  (under 
which  the  board  receive  fees  for  licenses,)  provides  that,  “the 
fees  received  by  the  board  shall  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  ' 
the  medical  society,  by  which  the  board  shall  have  been  ap- 
pointed,” but,  as  the  board  is  appointed  by  the  governor , and 


A \p. 


4 INFORMATION  FOR  TAX-PAYERS. 

not  by  a medical  society,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  the 
board  hold  the  money  in  trust,  whilst  it  is  in  their  hands,  and 
that  it  should  be  paid  to  the  governor,  and  by  him  paid  into 
the  State  treasury,  or  else,  the  money  should  be  paid  into  the 
treasury  by  the  board.  The  board  admits  that  the  money 
should  be  accounted  for  by  them,  by  charging  themselves 
with  it,  and  if,  as  conceded,  the  money  belongs  to  the  people 
of  the  State,  the  board  should  be  required  to  account  for  it  as 
strictly  as  they  should  account  for  that  drawn  from  the  pub- 
lic treasury.  If  the  money  was  paid  into  the  treasury,  then 
the  board  must  tile  vouchers  showing  how  it  was  expended. 

AUTHORIZED  EXPENDITURES. 

Section  u,  of  the  act  creating  and  establishing  the  Board 
of  Health  provides,  that  the  secretary  shall  receive  a salary 
to  be  fixed  by  the  board*.  He  shall  also  receive  his  traveling 
and  other  expenses  incurred  in  the  performance  of  his  official 
duties ; the  other  members  of  the  board  shall  receive  no  com- 
pensation for  their  services,  but  their  traveling  and  other  ex- 
penses while  employed  on  the  business  of  the  board,  shall  be 
paid.  The  president  of  the  board  shall  certify  to,  and  draw 
warrants  on  the  treasury  for  amount  due  secretary. 

LIMIT  OF  EXPENDITURES. 

Section  13  of  said  act  provides,  “that  the  sum  of  five 
“ thousand  dollars , or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary, 
“ is  hereby  appropriated  to  pay  the  salary  of  the  secretary, 
“ meet  the  contingent  expenses  of  the  office  of  the  secretary, 
“ and  the  expenses  of  the  board,  and  all  costs  for  printing, 
“ which  together  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  hereby  appropriated. 
“ Said  expenses  shall  be  certified  and  paid  in  the  same  man- 
“ ner  as  the  salary  of  the  secretary.” 

Section  11  and  section  13,  above,  are  the  only  ones  author- 
izing the  board  to  expend  money,  and  section  13,  in  plain , 
terms,  places  a positive  limit  to  the  amount  that  may  lawfully 
be  paid  out  under  said  acts.  The  limit  is  $5,000,  and  any 
expenses  incurred  or  payments  made  beyond  that  amount, 
are  in  direct  violation  of  the  law  creating  the  board.  That 


INFORMATION  FOR  TAX-PAYERS. 


5 


limitation  was  as  binding  upon  the  board  as  the  provisions 
in  the  constitution  limiting  the  amount  to  be  expended  for  the 
new  State  house. 

Notwithstanding  this  express  limitation  in  the  act  creating  the 
State  Board  of  Health,  we  find  on  page  43  of  their  report, 


that  the  amount  the  board  has  paid  out  is $7,926  40 

Amount  authorized 5,000  00 

Unauthorized  and  illegal $2,926  00 


Here  is  a jilain,  clear  case  of  a violation  of  the  express  pro- 
visions of  the  act  under  which  the  members  of  the  board 
were  appointed,  and  which  they  were  bound  to  observe. 

The  words:  “which  together  shall  not  exceed  the  sum 
“ hereby  appropriated,”  do  not  admit  of  any  two  construc- 
tions. 

In  their  report,  the  members  of  the  board  do  not  attempt 
to  show  that  there  was  any  necessity  for  them  to  violate  the 
law,  which  they  claim  they  are  fairly  seeking  to  enforce,  and 
desire  others  to  observe. 

Can  they  expect  others  to  observe  a law  that  they  them- 
selves violate? 

If  there  existed  a good  reason  for  this  violation  of  law,  it 
was  due  to  the  tax-payers  of  the  State,  if  not  to  themselves, 
that  the  board  should  in  their  report,  have  stated  such 
reasons: 

III. 

HAS  THE  BOARD  PROPERLY  ACCOUNTED  FOR  ALL  MONEYS 


RECEIVED? 

The  board  admits  receiving  for  certificates $5,910  00 

They  have  received  from  the  State  treasury  to  Jan.  17th 2,945  21 


Total  received $8,855  21 

Vouchers  are  filed  with  auditor  for $2,945  2i 

Cash  reported  on  hand . 474  56 

$3>419  77 


Amounts  for  which  no  vouchers  are  shown $5,435  44 


No  vouchers  or  other  evidence  of  the  correctness  or 
necessity  of  the  expenditure  of  $5,435.44  are  filed  with  the 
auditor,  nor  presented  to  the  governor  with  the  report  of  the 
board.  In  ordinary  business  matters,  receipts  are  usual]) 
required  by  business  men  for  all  payments  made  by  them. 


6 


INFORMATION  FOR  TAX-PAYERS. 


Can  public  officers  and  those  entrusted  with  the  public 
moneys,  satisfy  themselves,  and  satisfy  the  tax-payers  of  the 
State,  by  conducting  business  in  a less  careful  manner  than 
men  usually  conduct  their  private  affairs? 

By  looking  into  the  accounts,  as  the  board  have  seen  fit  to 
present  them,  we  may  see  the  necessity  for  vouchers.  The 
board,  however,  may  haye  vouchers  in  its  own  possession. 
Have  they?  Thus  far  we  have  seen  that  the  board  has,  ac- 
cording to  its  own  showing,  expended  in  excess  of  the 
amount  authorized  by  law,  the  sum  of  $2,926.40,  and  has  not 
presented  vouchers  for  the  payment  of  $5,435.44. 


HAS  THE  BOARD  PROPERLY  EXPENDED  THE  MONEY? 


If  vouchers  had  been  filed,  this  question  could  the  more 
easily  have  been  answered.  Now,  we  can  only  look  to  the 
credits  the  board  has  allowed  itself  in  its  report. 


EXPENSES  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  BOARD. 

Up  to  January  17th,  1879,  the  board  had  drawn  pay  for 
expenses  as  follows: 

Dr.  Bateman  $33  55 

Dr.  Gregory 37  84 

Dr.  Chambers ' 36  20 

Dr.  Clark 32  40 

Dr.  Ludlam . . 29  20 

Dr.  Wardner 36  85 

Dr.  Rauch 790  96 

Total  paid  members  for  expenses $997  °o 

“The  other  members  of  the  board  shall  receive  no  com- 
“ pensation  for  their  services,”  but  their  expenses  shall  be 
paid,  was  the  law  governing  the  board.  The  six  members  of 
the  board  first  above  named  are  entitled  to  credit  for  the  ex- 
traordinary small  amount  of  their  several  expenses,  more  es- 
pecially as  they  have  held  16  meetings  in  9 different  places 
in  the  State.  This  is  partly  accounted  for  from  the  fact  that 
no  railroad  fares  or  telegraph  charges  were  paid  by  any 
members  of  the  board,  as  it  is  not  conceivable  that  they 
would,  as  they  have  done  on  page  56  of  their  report,  “beg 
leave  to  tender  acknowledgements  to the  railway  and 


INFORMATION  FOR  TAX-PAYERS. 


7 


“ telegraph  corporations for  their  generous  and  con- 

“ stant  assistance  and  encouragement,”  if  full  fares  and 
charges  had  been  paid  to  such  corporations. 

Seven , out  of  the  16  meetings  of  the  board  were  held  at 
Chicago,  the  home  of  Dr.  Rauch.  How  under  such  circum- 
stances, his  expenses  could  reach  the  enormous  sum  of 
$790,96,  is,  without  the  vouchers,  left  solely  to  conjecture. 

CAN  THEY  BE  VERIFIED? 

Secretary,  acting  secretary,  and  clerical  services $4,734  22 

It  requires  vouchers , not  produced,  to  establish  the  correct- 
ness of  this  item.  Only  $1,197.82  are  shown  in  auditor’s 
office,  and  the  showing  there  gives  strange  results.  For  in- 
stance, E.  W.  Gray,  October  6th,  1877,  was  paid  $83.32  for 
salary  as  secretary  for  the  month  of  August,  1877. 

John  H.  Rauch , as  president  of  the  State  Board  of  Health, 
on  December  9th,  1878,  certified  that  John  H.  Rauch,  as  act- 
ing secretary  for  the'  months  of  September  and  October, 
1878,  was  entitled  to  $400.00,  and  John  H.  Rauch,  as  acting 
secretary , received  that  sum  from  the  treasurer. 

This  item  illustrates  three  points: 

r.  As  the  salary  of  the  secretary  is,  by  the  law,  to  be 
fixed  by  the  board,  that  the  board  had  fixed  the  salary  of 
E.  W.  Gray,  for  August,  1877,  at  $83.32,  and  for  September 
and  October,  1878,  had  fixed  the  salary  of  John  H.  Rauch 
ot  $200.00  per  month. 

2.  That  although  the  act  creating  the  board  provides 
that  there  shall  be  a president  and  secretary,  and  that  the 
president  shall  certify  the  amount  due  the  secretary,  still 
both  offices  may  be  held  by  the  same  person. 

3.  That  although  the  act  provides  that  “ the  other  mem- 
“ bers  of  the  board  shall  receive  no  compensation , yet  the 
president  may,  if  he  acts  as  secretary. 

Dr.  A.  L.  Clark  is,  and  has  been  all  the  time,  the  nominal 
secretary  of  the  board,  yet  he  does  not  appear  to  have  served 
as  such,  but  has  allowed  others  to  run  the  office.  (See 
report.) 


8 


INFORMATION  FOR  TAX-PAYERS. 


Was  there  a secretary  and  a clerk  ? If  so,  how  much 
was  paid  to  each  ? 

Will  the  board  verify  its  account  ? 

postage,  $719.01! 


That  would  pay,  at  3 cents  each, 23*967  letters. 

“ “ “ 6 “ “ 11,683  “ 

“ “ “ 9 “ “ 7,989  “ 

“ “ “ 12  “ “ 5,991  “ 


Have  the  board  any  vouchers  ? 

Have  the  board  any  data  showing  amount  paid  for  post- 
age, or  the  number  of  letters  sent  ? 

On  account  of  what  was  done  by  the  board  before  the 
yellow  fever  reached  Cairo,  the  public  will  make  many  allow- 
ances for  discrepancies  in  its  report,  and  give  credit  for  con- 
siderable outlays  of  money,  even  beyond  the  amount  author- 
ized by  law,  to  stay  the  progress  of  that  dire  disease;  yet, 
the  same  public  would  be  better  satisfied  that  they  be  fur- 
nished with  evidence  that  the  money  entrusted  to  the  board 
had  been  properly  applied. 

A detailed  statement  can  so  readily  be  made  by  such  good 
business  men,  that  it  is  no  hardship  to  require  the  board  to 
make  one. 

Other  matters  appearing  in  the  report  are  open  to  criti- 
cism. Why  was  the  State  put  to  the  expense  of  the  map 
showing  where  the  yellow  fever  cases  resided  at  Cairo  ? 
Will  it  afford  information  as  to  where  it  will  be  located  in 
the  event  of  another  appearance  of  the  disease  ? Are  those 
yellow  fever  places  to  be  avoided  in  the  future  ? 

Again,  the  report  states  (page  5)  that  about  1,400  non- 
graduates have  since  left  the  State. 

From  reliable  information  obtained  from  various  parts  of 
the  State,  in  answer  to  special  inquiries,  the  above  statement 
in  said  report  is  believed  to  be  U7idesignedly  incorrect. 

From  the  report  and  the  records,  the  board  may  be 
charged: 

1.  With  not  accounting  for  all  monev  received. 

2.  With  expending  in  violation  of  law,  $2,926.44. 

3.  With  failure  to  pay  all  moneys  received  for  licenses  into 
the  state  treasury. 


INFORMATION  IOR  TAX-PAYERS.  9 

4.  With  failure  to  properly  account  for  $5,435.44. 

Dr.  John  H.  Rauch,  President  of  the  Board,  may  be 
charged — 

1.  With  overcharges  for  expenses,  thereby  obtaining  pay 
for  his  services,  when  no  coinpensation  was  allowed  by  law. 

2.  With  paying  himself  $400  for  services,  which  another 
as  capable,  would  have  done  for  $166.64. 

3.  And  thereby  obtaining  pay  for  services  as  a member 
of  the  board. 

Without  properly  accounting  for  moneys  already  received, 
the  board  now  asks  the  legislature  to  appropriate  from  the 
State  treasury  and  from  the  people’s  money,  to  be  paid  by 
taxation,  the  further  sum  of  $10,000.00. 

This  request  should  be  granted  without  question.  $5,000 
was  appropriated  under  the  original  act.  The  board  used 
that  amount,  and  although  prohibited  from  so  doing , expend- 
ed $2,926.40  more  than  that  amount. 

Now,  if  $10,000  is  appropriated,  the  board  would,  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  rule  of  progression,  use  that  sum,  and 
$5,852.80  more,  or  double  the  former  excess. 

If  the  legislature  does  not  require  this  board  to  account 
strictly  for  the  moneys  entrusted  to  it,  although  the  sum  is 
comparatively  small  in  amount,  may  not  the  people  say  that 
the  tax-payers  are  not  properly  protected? 

May  not  the  people  with  good  reason,  send  in  their 
petitions  by  the  score,  asking  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  creat- 
ing the  State  Board  of  Health?  Thousands  of  tax-payers  and 
voters,  have  already  petitioned  for  such  repeal. 

Leave  the  question  of  the  appropriation  of  the  $10,000 
from  the  public  treasury  to  a vote  of  the  people  at  the  June 
election,  and  it  will  then  be  seen  what  their  opinion  is  upon 
the  subject. 

Before  such  appropriation  is  made,  the  board  should  in 
any  event,  be  required  to  show  how  the  amounts  already 
received  have  been  applied. 


WILL  THIS  BE  DONE  ? 


J 


* 


V 


I 


t 


* • 


